Temple Raider, please answer this question: WHEN were you born? (This information will really help me to communicate with you.) If your first time seeing "Crusade' was on the USA network when you were 8 or 9 (and you didn't know that a 3rd Indiana Jones film existed before that), then you certainly could not have seen the original broadcast of "Making of Star Wars" on TV.

Now that you've been told about the origin of Indy's name & the inside joke in "Crusade", is the dog-name still so bizarre?

Hate to break it to you, Temple Raider, but your reasons toward why "Crusade" is inferior are pretty lame. Correct me if I'm wrong but, according to you, the film wasn't that great because Indy's dad wasn't a two-fisted, fightin', duplicate of his own son.

---
For me, "Last Crusade" was disappointing because it was, essentially, a re-hash of "Raiders".

Sorry I overlooked the question, I was born in 1987. I recall I first caught TLC on the USA network probably around 1995 or 1996.

Regarding the dog's name being Indiana, I said it's not something I have an issue with, it just seems a little strange that the family dog is where he would've gotten his name that people know him by, although it's not totally senseless since I can see him being attached to the dog and he could've taken the name as a means of honoring him.

And actually my reasons for finding TLC to be an inferior film to the rest doesn't have much to do with Henry, Sr. at all, I even said I really like his character. I just felt he had some goofy moments his character would've been better without. I wasn't expecting him to be a total copy of Indy and didn't even want him to be, I just expected him to be a more serious and stern character. Hope this clarifies everything. I probably should've just been a bit more detailed and thorough.

My reasons for finding TLC to be weaker than the rest for me among a few things is yes, it was definitely a Raiders retread in so many ways. After how well TOD showed Indy can work without Nazis and a different mythology, the film going back to retreading Raiders and with a much lighter and sillier tone was definitely disappointing. I generally don't have problems with sequels that are overly similar to the originals so long as they at least vary things up enough that they still feel fresh enough, but I think TLC much of the time was far too much of a mirror image of Raiders.

Other problems I have with it is that is also lacks the feeling of danger and peril ROTLA and TOD both have in spades that helps to make them that much more exciting and thrilling, a lot of the humorous moments are silly and take me out of the film sometimes, the villains are the least interesting and least menacing of the series, the climax is somewhat disappointing and I think the way it reduced Brody to a bumbling cartoon character was totally unnecessary. The way a lot of people tend to feel about Willie, Short Round and Mutt is very much applicable to how I feel about TLC's version of Brody and for some reason, Elsa is also a character I never liked and always found annoying and unlikeable, even though she's not a screaming and whining type like Willie. And as I also said, I really dislike the revelation how Indy stole his look from the explorer at the beginning. It just cheapens his character to me, to think his famous look with the fedora and jacket was something he stole from someone else.

I still love the film, it's fun and I always have a good time watching it, but of the original trilogy it definitely holds up the least well IMO, and overtime I've grown to enjoy KOTCS slightly more as I like that Indy at times feels more like his proper ROTLA/TOD self, the overall tone isn't as comical and the storyline was more creative and interesting to me. It has silly moments in it that are jarring yes, such as the fridge and swinging monkeys, and I won't argue or deny it's other flaws, but overtime it just feels like a tad more satisfying to watch than TLC these days.

Sorry I overlooked the question, I was born in 1987. I recall I first caught TLC on the USA network probably around 1995 or 1996.

Thanks for the clarification, Temple Raider! I really like to know who I'm talking to. (Blind conversation is frustrating, in my opinion.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Temple Raider

And actually my reasons for finding TLC to be an inferior film to the rest doesn't have much to do with Henry, Sr. at all, I even said I really like his character. I just felt he had some goofy moments his character would've been better without. I wasn't expecting him to be a total copy of Indy and didn't even want him to be, I just expected him to be a more serious and stern character. Hope this clarifies everything. I probably should've just been a bit more detailed and thorough.

Yeah, detail helps so your explanation lets us know where you're coming from. My previous remark was because you wrote that Henry's actions weren't right for the character. What I didn't realize at the time was that you were talking about YOUR idea of the character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Temple Raider

Other problems I have with it is that is also lacks the feeling of danger and peril ROTLA and TOD both have in spades that helps to make them that much more exciting and thrilling, a lot of the humorous moments are silly and take me out of the film sometimes.

Agreed. There is too much humour during the action parts.

For me, the worst parts of the film are the boat-chopping sequence with the ship's propellor (so embarassingly bad) and the part where Indy suddenly becomes free from being caught on the tank's side cannon. Upon seeing that cannon bit back in '89, I said to my girlfriend-at-the-time, "This is sh*t!". Truth be told, it was sh*t then and still is now.

I also hated/loathed/despised the existence & inclusion of the Grail Knight.(I've seen photos of DORKS dressed up as this character and don't understand why they decide to do it.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Temple Raider

And as I also said, I really dislike the revelation how Indy stole his look from the explorer at the beginning. It just cheapens his character to me, to think his famous look with the fedora and jacket was something he stole from someone else.

The beginning of "Crusade" has never bothered me. I actually LOVE it, simply because of the amazing music.

In fact, Lost Crusade is so patchy that the whole film would be infinitely improved if done as a half hour episode and shoved between Coronation Street and I'm A Washed Up Nobody Get Me Out Of Here.
At least then the Made-For-TV cinematography would fit right then.

Replican't was embarrassing on the Raven. The whole "every thing sucks" schtick is cringeworthy.

And onshe again, we have Replican't doing his mashterful method poshting. Inshult to inshult

Spare me. If one could digitally remove the joke that is his role from the Raven, it would be so much better.

In fact, Replican't's posts are so patchy that the whole site would be infinitely improved if he was done between his first post and the one's shoved between all the others. He is Washed Up. Somebody Get Him Out Of Here.

Anyone with a brain knows anti-America comments are rude and knows one should not be judged by their race or where they live. If I did that I would be a bigot like you. You are unpleasant many fronts. At least you are constantly ugly.

I also hated/loathed/despised the existence & inclusion of the Grail Knight.(I've seen photos of DORKS dressed up as this character and don't understand why they decide to do it.)

I don't care for that sequence either and to me it's the single most unbelievable moment in the series. The raft falling from the plane and nuke the fridge have nothing on this IMO, in terms of being completely unbelievable.

Anyone with a brain knows anti-America comments are rude and knows one should not be judged by their race or where they live. If I did that I would be a bigot like you. You are unpleasant many fronts. At least you are constantly ugly.

And yet you seem to be quite bigoted towards my posts.

I don't recall launching ad hominem attacks upon you recently - I could be mistaken of course, so feel free to highlight any.

I dont really understand why you get so defensive when all I am doing is pointing out the rather obvious flaws in a couple of films. I love Raiders - its faultless and a stone-classic. Temple is great fun, despite its dodgy racism. But Last Crusade and KOCS are both sub-par and ridiculously rubbish, retrospectively.

“How long does it take to cross the bridge from Australia to New Zealand?" “Why on earth did they build Windsor Castle on the flight path of Heathrow?” The geographical (and historical) ignorance evinced in these American tourist questions is legendary, and the National Geographic Society confirmed it in 2002 with a study showing that, among Americans aged 18 to 24, almost 30 percent could not identify the Pacific Ocean on a map. More than half could not locate India, and 85 percent could not find Iraq. The young people of America, the richest and most powerful country in the world, ranked next to last in the nine countries surveyed (source).

While American geographic education has improved in the last decade, most Americans still do not even have a passport. “The number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2011, is 114,464,041. Given the country’s population of 307,006,550, about 37% of the population has one, compared to Canada's 60% and the United Kingdom's 75%. This means that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world (although new rules currently allow about 3.5 million Americans with ‘Passport Cards’ to travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean and Bermuda, but these cards are not allowed to be used for international air travel)” .

I don't recall launching ad hominem attacks upon you recently - I could be mistaken of course, so feel free to highlight any.

I dont really understand why you get so defensive when all I am doing is pointing out the rather obvious flaws in a couple of films. I love Raiders - its faultless and a stone-classic. Temple is great fun, despite its dodgy racism. But Last Crusade and KOCS are both sub-par and ridiculously rubbish, retrospectively.

“How long does it take to cross the bridge from Australia to New Zealand?" “Why on earth did they build Windsor Castle on the flight path of Heathrow?” The geographical (and historical) ignorance evinced in these American tourist questions is legendary, and the National Geographic Society confirmed it in 2002 with a study showing that, among Americans aged 18 to 24, almost 30 percent could not identify the Pacific Ocean on a map. More than half could not locate India, and 85 percent could not find Iraq. The young people of America, the richest and most powerful country in the world, ranked next to last in the nine countries surveyed (source).

While American geographic education has improved in the last decade, most Americans still do not even have a passport. “The number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2011, is 114,464,041. Given the country’s population of 307,006,550, about 37% of the population has one, compared to Canada's 60% and the United Kingdom's 75%. This means that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world (although new rules currently allow about 3.5 million Americans with ‘Passport Cards’ to travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean and Bermuda, but these cards are not allowed to be used for international air travel)” .

No highlighting necessary, you haven't launched an attack on me, I just don't like your garbage attitude. You can dislike all the films for all I care, I am not defensive, I just feel making the same repetitive negative post is worthless to this site. You say the same things over and over while sounding like an obnoxious bratty child. Also me not liking you is whole lot different than you slandering a whole country. You are a hateful little person full of piss and vinegar. Good luck with that. Maybe if you contributed something besides the same old "this sucks, that sucks" posts and were a little nicer, you wouldn't have people constantly telling you what a jerk you are and complaining to the mods about you.

The only person who seems to constantly - repetitively and monotonously, rather ironically - comment on what "a jerk" I am is you.

At least you are the one who seems to have the biggest issue with me.

Sorry that I seem to press your buttons so. Perhaps if I were to word my issues with the Indiana Jones films more eloquently, you would be less aggrieved?

I am sure there are those here who posts many varieties of the same thoughts over time - after all, how much can one realistically be expected to say about something as culturally unimportant as a bunch of Indiana Jones films? Profundity-wise, it's hardly on a par with the works of Dostoevsky, Malick, Picasso or Scott Walker.

The only person who seems to constantly - repetitively, ironically - what "a jerk" I am are you.

At least you are the one who seems to have the biggest issue with me.

Sorry that I seem to press your buttons so. Perhaps if I were to word my issues with the Indiana Jones films more eloquently, you would be less aggrieved?

I am sure there are those here who posts many varieties of the same thoughts over time - after all, how much can one realistically be expected to say about something as culturally unimportant as a bunch of Indiana Jones films? Profundity-wise, it's hardly on a par with the works of Dostoevsky, Malick, Picasso or Scott Walker.

You must have selective memory. You have people tell you all the time you are rude. I am just the most recent. I am not even defensive, I just find you obnoxious. Like I said, you can hate the films all day but posting "KOTCS is crap" all the time has no substance. I think the way you are turning this into I am being defensive about the films and not looking at what I am really saying (your approach is horrendous), and that for some reason you have forgot all the others who have said the same is very immature. Didn't you just come off a suspension? So, am I really the only one who has issue with you? Come on, really?

Read my posts above - I say far more than just 'KOCS is crap'. My language is far more obscene and colourful than that.

I think you'd be better served, timewise, if you devoted less attention to me and more to things that actually mean something. Because my view on an Indiana Jones forum, no matter how often I make it or how bitterly - is pretty worthless in the scheme of things.

Back on topic, anyone else find the 'comedy' in Last Crusade far too broad and unfocused? The movie would be better served with more restraint and a darker tone.

I also hated/loathed/despised the existence & inclusion of the Grail Knight. (I've seen photos of DORKS dressed up as this character and don't understand why they decide to do it.)

For me it's the lowest point in the film. A face/palm on a par with the snake in the sandpit.

After the heady heights of decapitation, the reveal of the pathetic knight was a decidedly low point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by replican't

Back on topic, anyone else find the 'comedy' in Last Crusade far too broad and unfocused? The movie would be better served with more restraint and a darker tone.

I think the film was made as an antithesis to TOD. The broad comedy is almost an apology for taking viewers on a trip to hell last time out.

While I like TLC I wouldn't have minded more restraint and a darker tone. The first time we see uniformed SS in an Indy film, and the only Dantean aspect about them is that the commanding officer is as camp as hell!

Read my posts above - I say far more than just 'KOCS is crap'. My language is far more obscene and colourful than that.

I think you'd be better served, timewise, if you devoted less attention to me and more to things that actually mean something. Because my view on an Indiana Jones forum, no matter how often I make it or how bitterly - is pretty worthless in the scheme of things.

Back on topic, anyone else find the 'comedy' in Last Crusade far too broad and unfocused? The movie would be better served with more restraint and a darker tone.

Agreed. LC's comedy is way over the top. I think tbe series took a horrible turn at that point. I also believe it is to blame for the problems in CS as well. CS and LC are not at all as good as tbe first two.

If TLC and KOTCS were on the downward spiral, and some would argue that the downward trend began with TOD, it would seem that ROTLA was the benchmark that Lucas and Spielberg couldn't surpass.

While fumbling about in the dark with a new character they struck gold. Three further attempts to replicate the perfect balance of adventure, comedy and horror couldn't match the original. Though I would say that #2 and #3 were closer than #4.

This will upset a few members, but putting Indy back on track would have required a revamp of Nolanesque proportions. Less comedy, more mystery, more threat, but without losing the wry sense of humour and irony that permeated Raiders.

Raiders is a great film and in the attempt to outdo it they made TOD. While it is not Raiders as far as a copy, it tries to hard at points and is a lot less believable because of over the top moments. Last Crusade tries to hard to be Raiders while at the same time is so lighthearted and full of jokes it changes the tone of the series entirely and makes it far less gritty. Also, the named after the dog bit and Marcus behaving like a buffoon ruin the characters in my opinion and makes Indy seem a little less cool. CS takes the tone of LC and amps it up to where it is not just campy but campy to the point of it takes you out of the moment and makes you say I am watching a movie and not part of it.

@ Stoo: I was aware about the "real life" naming of Indiana but naming him after the dog *on screen" was terrible. I remember thinking it ruined the character in some way to me.

I'm interested to know why you think so, Dubya. How could the origin of his name "ruin" his character?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKORadio

Sorry Stoo.

Remember im a teenager. Britpop and the Spice Girls are ancient history to my generation.

RKO, there's no need to apologize. Learning & discussing all-things-Indy is the main point of The Raven! (By the way, Brit-pop has been constant for 50 years now and the Spice Girls were an inconsequential blip on the overall radar of musical history).

I'm interested to know why you think so, Dubya. How could the origin of his name "ruin" his character?
RKO, there's no need to apologize. Learning & discussing all-things-Indy is the main point of The Raven! (By the way, Brit-pop has been constant for 50 years now and the Spice Girls were an inconsequential blip on the overall radar of musical history).

In my opinion, Sean Connery filled his role very successfully.

To me, the name Indiana was intriguing and mysterious. I thought, what a cool name to give your kid. Then, to see on screen the named after the dog thing makes the name a joke and makes Indy a little bit of a joke at that point by taking the awesome name away for the sake of a gag. A grown man calling himself Indiana when his real name is Henry comes off hokey to me.

Stoo and Henry W. Jones
They are now making 1980s nostalgia flicks. Having been born at the end of the 1990s it's going to be weird in 20-30 years when they have nostalgia movies for my childhood and teen years in the 00s and 10s.

Stoo and Henry W. Jones
They are now making 1980s nostalgia flicks. Having been born at the end of the 1990s it's going to be weird in 20-30 years when they have nostalgia movies for my childhood and teen years in the 00s and 10s.

Location: England (you can get all kinds of transport there ... boat, plane, anything)

Posts: 459

I have always liked the movies in the order in which they were released, with Raiders standing head and shoulders above the rest. That movie just had the right amount of edge to make it a grown-up cinematic adventure story without pandering to the summer blockbuster crowd.